Yes, this is regrettably true, but the rule is correctly and fully stated on page 497, lines 22-29. Actually, the proper factual context is also set forth on page 456, lines 28-34, immediately preceding the troublesome statement to which you refer, but I agree that what follows can be misleading.

The only point that RONR is trying to make in this connection is that when, as so often happens, an organization's bylaws provide that the President shall be a member of all committees (with limited exceptions), as in the sample bylaws on page 587, lines 34-36, the evident intent and purpose of such a provision is to permit the President to act as a member of these committees, but not to require that he or she do so.

Oh, I think that if a committee's chairman will be acting as parliamentarian at the meeting at which the committee 's report is to be presented, the committee should certainly choose another one of its members to act as its reporting member.

But now that you mention (in another thread) that your association is a home owners association, you may find something in an applicable statute relating to your questions. If so, it will take precedence over anything in your bylaws or in Robert's Rules of Order with which it may conflict.

I'm not at all sure about this. It appears that the point of order was raised regarding the eligibility of nominees who were declared to have been elected. As a consequence, it may well be that this appeal does not adhere to any pending motion.
If the point of order was raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote, I suppose the election might be regarded as still pending, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that a motion might then be made to lay the election on the table.

Based solely upon the facts provided, I think that, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, the power vested in the Board by the Articles of Incorporation to determine the location of this particular office cannot be undermined by any provision contained in the bylaws. In other words, I'm inclined to disagree with the previous responses.

Well, at least I think so, absent something else in the bylaws indicating otherwise. 🙂
Whenever there is any conflict between the rules in the bylaws and the rules in RONR, the rules in the bylaws prevail.

Actually, I think the language he might want to use would be something similar to that which is found in RONR (11th ed.), on pages 653-54 regarding removal of an officer from office under certain circumstances.
His bylaws might say something to the effect that, at the special meeting called for such a purpose, members may be expelled from membership simply by the adoption of a motion to do so, without trial, and specify the vote required for adoption of such a motion (which, we are told, they already do).

I suggest that you take a careful look at SDC 6 for the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted (RONR, 11th ed., p. 306), and what is said on pages 307-308 regarding amendment of such motions which go beyond the scope of notice given regarding their proposed amendment.

Well, the insertion of that word "voting" before "members" may give rise to a bit of an ambiguity unless there are members of this organization who, although they are "members", are not "voting members".